Posted
by
ScuttleMonkeyon Friday October 02, 2009 @04:52PM
from the efficiency-is-overrated dept.

itwbennett writes "Sony announced Friday that it has developed a prototype power system based on magnetic resonance that can send 'a conventional 100 volt electricity supply over a distance of 50 centimeters to power a 22-inch LCD television.' Unfortunately, Sony's prototype wasted 1/5 of the power fed into it and additional losses 'occurred in circuitry connected to the secondary coil so the original 80 watts of power was cut by roughly a quarter to 60 watts once it had made its way through the system.'"

I think that IQ, like money, tends to be a dividing factor between the haves and have nots.

Those who go to college tend to be prepared to get high enough paying jobs to make sure that their kids go to college, whereas the poor tend to stay poor since they can't afford to pass on the tradition of getting a degree.

Seeing as africans were once considered mere slaves, and thus excluded from the vast majority of societal benefits enjoyed by the white man, I'm not surprised that they're still crippled from ages o

Yes, but it's only commercial-filled crap beamed from a broadcaster, which doesn't allow you to pause, rewind, store programs, choose exactly what movie you want to watch and when, etc. And due to FCC rules, you're not allowed to transmit your own video on public channels (since it would inevitably interfere with other people doing the same thing).

Yeah, that'll work real well. Look how well TVs have sold in the past when VCRs and DVDs were built-in. It's a stupid idea because as soon as some other thing comes out, your TV is obsolete and saddled with POS you never use.

I'll bet a lot of people are glad they never bought a $3000 TV with built-in HD-DVD (not that one was ever offered, but for exactly this reason).

Even "clueless" non-tech-savvy consumers know not to buy TVs with built-in stuff. Everyone knows that they keep their TV for many years, so

If you still need a cable to connect your video sources, what's the point?

I'm pretty sure prototypes (and maybe one or two production implementations) of systems which can transmit analog and digital streams (including, in either form, audio+video streams) between points without cables have existed for a while.

These things will probably be banned if they become technically workable and appear on the market. Remember, the main reason to use such a thing would be to connect your Blu-Ray player to your 52" flat-screen TV without having to run cables through the walls. But doing this wirelessly would constitute public distribution of this copyrighted content, which is illegal as the FCC notice says at the beginning of the movie, so the studios will probably have this technology banned.

Yeah, but as you pointed out, their quality was poor, mainly because they convert to FM radio which is noticeably worse than CD-quality audio.

Anything expected to replace HDMI cables would need to have equal quality, and that would make it possible to make a perfect digital copy by sniffing the transmission. The media companies will hate that and try to get their employees in Congress to ban it, which should be easier since Congress is currently Democrat-controlled, and the Dems are in the pockets of the m

Well, you don't actually need to connect video sources. You can use a USB Stick attached to the TV, specially if it is one of those TV's used in showrooms and company entrance halls that just show a video on loop.

Why is anyone wasting any time on useless technology like this? Is it based on consumer demand? If so then consumers need some basic physics and electronics lessons. This is not Star Trek, people, we can't "beam" your power to you via subspace, the inverse-square law fully applies, this is not ever going to be efficient or practical! Electrically powered things require power cords, get over it!

There's lots of places where technological advances would not only be very useful, but maybe even necessary for the continued existence of our civilization: biotech and agriculture to make more food for our geometrically-increasing population and cure diseases, newer transportation technology, etc.

Wireless power (at least not one with such a limited range) is not something that has any serious uses. It might make it easier to recharge your cellphone, but please don't try to argue that this is some critical

What could possibly be SOOOOO useful about not needing an 18" long extension cord? If you can get power to within 50cm of a device, you can get it all the way to the device without any extra trouble. If you can't get it within 50cm, then this technology is useless. The laws of physics pretty much guarantee it isn't going to be used for any long-range power transmission.

You're acting like innovation doesn't exist, as if this technology will stay in the exact same form as when it was originally invented.

Where did you get that from? I never made any such claims.

The world sure would suck if you were best friends with the guy who invented the first transistor. "Its useless! Its too big, too costly to make, takes way to much power and is too inefficient to do anything of real use! We should go back to working on flying cars, thats a real problem in the world today!"

To put it in programming terms, yes, the losses are O(N^2). But that says nothing about lower-order factors.

The whole point of resonant coupling are that you greatly extend the distance at which your losses occur. They still fall off by the same scale, but at a much greater distance. Think of it akin to broadcasting microwaves with a non-directional antenna versus a parabolic dish. Only in this case, you don't have to "aim".

Why is anyone wasting any time on useless technology like this? Is it based on consumer demand? If so then consumers need some basic physics and electronics lessons. This is not Star Trek, people, we can't "beam" your [data] to you via subspace, the inverse-square law fully applies, this is not ever going to be efficient or practical! [communication] things require [phone] cords, get over it!

You'd be ranting about horseless carriages if you were living a hundred years ago.

Actually, from what I remember of Star Trek, there was no wireless power there, either. Phasers, communicators, etc., all were powered by some kind of battery. That's why phasers could be set to overload, and explode, or ran out of power occasionally. "Subspace" was only useful for transmitting communications FTL, not power.

err... its only inverse-square if the energy is unfocused. Since we are talking about a *beam*, this is clearly not the case. The parallel is not exact, but we have known how to transmit EM radiation directionally for decades (what do you think all those parabolic dishes are for?), thereby avoiding inverse-square attenuation; the EM energy is 'beamed' to a receiving antenna, where it induces a current and hence transmits energy.
In this case, the trick is constructing a primary coil such that most of the

If this is a Sony technology, you better believe the electricity is going to be in some kind of proprietary format that requires you to purchase special electrons at a 30% premium over industry standard.

Quick! Somebody buy the Sony engineers a pair of these [thinkgeek.com]!

The warning for this "WEC [thinkgeek.com]" device reminds me of an old SNL skit [wikipedia.org]:

* Warning: Pregnant women, the elderly, and children under 10 should avoid prolonged exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
* Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds.
* Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, which, if exposed due to rupture, should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
* Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
* Discontinue use of Happy Fun Ball if any of the following occurs:
o

Tesla was working on wireless electricity transmission but he was also working on a load of other stuff, all while baking his brain with "health-giving" X-rays. And while Tesla both claimed to have succeeded in wireless transmission and others are purported to have witnessed it, he never once made a claim as to the efficiency which, based on the efficiency of a lot of his other inventions (70% [RMS] for AC, >80% for a coil) was never higher than what Sony's come up with here.

...Tesla never really disclosed the efficiency of his Colorado Springs transmitter. (And IIRC he wasted a lot of time trying to overcome the grounding problems). He never got to complete the New Jersey installation, which I've always thought may have been because his backers didn't know how to install meters to monetise the reception of the power.

I'd say it's a good bet that he succeeded in some form, if you're talking about a short enough distance and can tolerate a low enough efficiency, it's not that much different than some of the inventions that he's gotten credit for. He definitely knew about and worked with induction which is usually what this sort of technology is based upon.

I'd say that it's also a good bet that whatever he managed was impressive by the standards of the day, but of no lasting significance. Most likely he managed to light

Forget the Sony jokes for a minute. I can think of a great use for this technology : recharging smartphones!

Essentially, if they can miniaturize the receiver coils sufficiently enough, you could pack them so that they are integrated inside the batteries used in a smartphone. (yes, yes, it is somewhat inconvenient to swap the battery in certain Apple phones...)

Imagine the possibilities. You could have one of these transmitters in your car, plugged into the cigarette lighter and stuck between the driver's seat and the cupholders. Another could be on top of your nightstand in your bedroom, or wherever you tend to toss your keys, wallet, and phone at the end of the day. A third one would be in your office on your desk.

If the range is enough (100 centimeters or so) your phone would get recharged while it's still in your pocket! You'd never have to remember to plug it in, and you would be able to use the various power sucking features (games, turn by turn GPS, etc) all you wanted and would almost never run out of battery. It would neatly solve the battery problems with the current generation of smart-phones without having to make the phones bulkier or heavier.

Problems :

1. The receiver coil might take up too much space inside the phone.2. The range might not be 100 centimeters due to various scaling laws3. The electromagnetic charging fields might cause biological tissue damage, making it dangerous to use while in your pocket. It might interfere with pacemakers.4. The fields might wipe credit cards or interfere with electronics in your car or office.

But if these problems aren't that bad, or can be avoided somehow, it would be great!

Nikola Tesla [wikipedia.org] invented wireless electricity transfer at the turn of the 20th (yes, 20th) century. He was trying to prototype it by constructing what was called the Wardenclyffe Tower [wikipedia.org]. Of course, everyone during that time thought he was a nut and the funding ran out.

Tesla is a candidate for the title of "smartest person who ever lived," and without him we probably would not have alternating current, which probably means we would get zapped much more often from our PCs (or "PMFs", i.e. Personal MainFrames). Now, considering the way society neglects its heroes of innovation, just watch Sony finish this and claim to have brought "wireless power" to the world, without ever having mentioned Tesla. "Oh yeah, him? Well we figured this out on our own. We just read a lot of these old books on magnetic resonance and pieced it all together. So smart is we!"

People have been demonstrating variations on this for over a century, since Tesla shorted out the city of Colorado Springs.

It's still largely a solution looking for a problem. There's some areas where this kind of thing is both safe and useful, but they're pretty specialized. Charging or powering personal electronics isn't one of those areas.

All the schemes that have been tried by Tesla and latecomers don't have a chance. Either they're spewing out energy, which goes down in intensity as the square of the distance, or they're like Sony, and making big air-core transformers, where the fields go down as the CUBE of the distance. You'll notice it takes a 40cm coil to send power 50cm. And so on.

Then there's the problem with all the scattered energy that does not end up in the receiving device. We're talking many watts of power. Microwave ovens are only allowed to leak a thousandth of a watt-- no national safety agency is going to allow ten thousand times that much power wandering around our houses. Yes, the power couples somewhat weakly to flesh, but it's still a lot of power to be bathing in 24/7.

Put this in the center of the roads, and power your electric vehicle without a huge battery bank required. Even more efficient because you won't have to be using electricity to haul around 500kg (or however much) of batteries.

I'm appalled. This "prototype" isn't already perfected technology and they had the gall to send out a press release! They should just chunk the idea out the window! And please people, please stop creating this technologizma stuff because it's destroying Mother Earth.

We in the IT industry would rather all the environmentalists take a flying leap and fuck off.

We make loads of profits giving our entitlement-mentality trained customers what they want, and since we don't have to pay for hurting mother earth we will do so. Your grandkids will be paying, not us.

Oh, and all of our competitors think the same way, so we really need to make sure that if the earth is going to be ravaged anyway that we at least get a slice of the pie.

75% efficiency is perfectly acceptable for low power devices. Making and shipping alkaline batteries repeatedly, or relying on rechargeable NiMH batteries that often leak more energy than gets used in the device, is certainly far more wasteful. So using this sort of tech to power those kinds of devices (clocks, smoke alarms, stick-on lights, etc) sounds quite reasonable. I'd certainly buy a $20 device that meant I never had to change a smoke alarm or clock battery again. In fact, 75% efficiency means it'd probably be a about breakeven powering a NiMH Roomba or Scooba versus charging their packs (in addition to leaking, NiMH isn't a very efficient charger). So you could have your home robotics never leak charge or have to waste energy charging, and never have battery packs need to be replaced, as well as the obvious "no limit on how long they can run for before needing to go back to dock".

They're going to have to significantly improve on the range, though. 1 1/2 feet isn't much at all.

Another interesting possibility would be to have a pocket-sized device powered by a li-ion battery pack. Carry it on your person and all of your portable gismos -- cameras, flashlights, cell phones, etc -- stay charged. When you get back home or to your hotel room, you plug it in to charge it. They wouldn't need as much range improvement, but they would need to make it a lot smaller than 40cm across (unless it'd be something you carry in a backpack).

Certainly you don't want 75% efficiency running TVs or charging electric cars (unless you can do it on the road, for long trip range extending -- but then you'd need some *serious* range!). But for battery-powered devices, that's fine.

So using this sort of tech to power those kinds of devices (clocks, smoke alarms, stick-on lights, etc) sounds quite reasonable.

Smoke alarms have to use wires: it's how they avoid battery usage altogether (except as backup), and connect to each other so they all alarm at the same time. Every new house is required to be wired for smoke detectors.

Honestly, I can only think of one application where not needing a power cord for a 50cm distance is all that helpful: a "charging pad" to recharge your mobile devi

Perhaps every new house, but mine certainly isn't. I have to change the 9-volts regularly.

Honestly, I can only think of one application where not needing a power cord for a 50cm distance is all that helpful:

Take a walk through your house some time, and look at every last little gadget in the house, and count how many batteries (replaceable or rechargeable, embedded or removable) you find. I bet you'll be surprised.

Take a walk through your house some time, and look at every last little gadget in the house, and count how many batteries (replaceable or rechargeable, embedded or removable) you find. I bet you'll be surprised.

Yes, that's the application I named: recharging mobile devices without messing with cords with proprietary. This Sony thing doesn't even appear to be aimed at that, and as you showed, the technology to do that is already here, even though no one wants to build it in.

Considering this is from Sony, I can immediately think of a use: Wireless controllers. My roommate has a 360, and we have to recharge the batteries in the controllers CONSTANTLY. If just being close to the system was enough to charge the controlllers, it would be very useful.

Cut a hole in the wall, and wire a new outlet to the other outlet. If it's a device you're going to be using in that location for a while, it's worth an hour of time and $3 in parts from Lowe's. This is exactly what I did for a motorized cat litter box I put in a closet.

All cell phones don't use proprietary connectors. I've made it a point with my last two phones to get a model with a standardized USB connector for power and sync capabilities, so I can charge from any powered USB port I can find. I can't even count the number of times I've recharged my phone off my laptop while driving or on a train, or even at friend's houses by just making sure a common USB cable.

Then how come the EU and U.S. are banning incandescent bulbs? The latest prototypes using laser-carved filaments operate at just 20 watts, and make the same light as a 15 watt compact fluorescent light. So that's what? 75% efficiency? And yet this is considered unacceptable by the politicians.

I say, if the bulbs are banned for inefficiency, then so too should these over-the-air power transmissions (for the same reason).

Since when do laser-carved filament incandescents make the same light as 15W CFLs? A 15W CFL has the same lumen output as a traditional 60W incandescent.

This page [discovermagazine.com] says that the laser treatment boosted a 60W bulb to the output of a 100W bulb. Hardly the 3x increase you claim. And they say it's not ready for commercialization (for one, I have to wonder how long that nanostructured surface that gives the greater efficiency will last through hours of operation)

The latest prototypes using laser-carved filaments operate at just 20 watts, and make the same light as a 15 watt compact fluorescent light.

Such a lamp will remain legal in the US. A 20 watt incandescent light bulb will be legal in the US whatever the output, given current legislation; a light bulb emitting 900 lumens will be legal at 43W or less.

one side of the tech business is actively thinking "hmmm fossil fuels will be running out, WTF are we gonna do" whilst the other side goes "WOOOOOOOOOO! Wireless power! PARTY ON!"

Don't be a doofus, this is a prototype. It's not like they're releasing it for mass consumption. Besides, who says we can't have wireless green electricity. The only thing NOT green about this is where the electricity comes from. Who gives a shit if it wastes 1/5th of the power if all that power comes from solar panels. There are plenty of nasty false dichotomies in the public sphere (nature/nurture, democrat/republican) we don't need another one. Don't be a doofus.

Indeed, just because this early prototype has 75% efficiency we must assume that the maximum that can ever be achieved. Best to just stop investigating it instead of working on improving the range and efficiency. After all scientific progress has advanced quite far enough hasn't it?

God forbid that we improve this technology and use it to replace other sources of loss to reduce energy consumption! After all we are rapidly moving towards an electric infrastructure for vehicles, and they are always this close to the road. Imagine just how bad it would be for global warming if we replaced batteries (and their associated losses) with this technology. Evil scientists.

What happens with the energy sending coil ? We're just looking at loss in the transfer here, but I assume you'd keep that sucker going day and night to immediately power any device you might happen to carry by it. What's going to be the energy cost of that ?

In the short run, I agree with you. In the long run, I can conceive of a universe where people think it is insane to have exposed electrical sitting out in plain sight every 12 feet in every room of a home. Think of the children!!!! Joking aside, There was a time when people thought nothing of having bear electrical wires running through their house to power lights. Today, we would think they were insane. Give it one generation of magnetic resonance being used to power household appliances, and people w

Do you have any idea how much power is used to actually produce that few inches of wire? Doubtfull as it may be but systems like this may end up saving energy in the future. Even if they are not 100% energy efficient. Imagine how much money/energy would be saved if you never had to wire a house in the first place. Or if we could actualy get a wireless transmission system. Those telephone polls don't grow on trees.... Get a clue

That is correct. My point was not that this will save energy right now but the tech even if it is not 100% could potentially save energy. It depends on a lot of factors so many that you cant just issue a blanket statement either way.

For one thing, your invention list is severely flawed. Many things which you say were invented by one group were actually invented by someone else and then developed or refined by another. The Japanese didn't invent hybrids; locomotive and heavy construction equipment makers have been using diesel-electric powertrains for decades.

You're also forgetting the Arabs and algebra and various other things (granted, this was back around 1000 AD, not recently when they've been too b

You have to get significantly longer extension cord and put a lot more current through it before the power loss is relevant. Even if you used a 12 ft cord, and drew a rather significant 4A, that's still only 1.5W out of 480, or 99.7% efficient. And most extension cords are 14 AWG or thicker.

The wasted energy is most likely dissipated as high frequency RF energy.
In most primary/secondary coil designs (for the less enlightened... think Tesla coil), the bulk (80-90%) of "lost" energy is dissipated as high frequency RF. The rest is dissipated as heat and light.

Only if your lights are within 2 feet of an outlet.But, if you did this with all the overhead lights you have in you house (guessing around 12), you could save up to 24 inches of copper wiring, with only a 25% increase in your power needs for those lights.